Local Control and Survival Following Concomitant Chemoradiotherapy in Inoperable Stage I Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

Stereotactic ablative radiotherapy versus standard radiotherapy in stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (TROG 09.02 CHISEL): a phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Stereotactic ablative body radiotherapy (SABR) is widely used to treat inoperable stage 1 non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC), despite the absence of prospective evidence that this type of treatment improves local control or prolongs overall survival compared with standard radiotherapy. We aimed to compare the two treatment techniques.

METHODS

We did this multicentre, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial in 11 hospitals in Australia and three hospitals in New Zealand. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had biopsy-confirmed stage 1 (T1-T2aN0M0) NSCLC diagnosed on the basis of ¹⁸F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET, and were medically inoperable or had refused surgery. Patients had to have an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0 or 1, and the tumour had to be peripherally located. Patients were randomly assigned after stratification for T stage and operability in a 2:1 ratio to SABR (54 Gy in three 18 Gy fractions, or 48 Gy in four 12 Gy fractions if the tumour was <2 cm from the chest wall) or standard radiotherapy (66 Gy in 33 daily 2 Gy fractions or 50 Gy in 20 daily 2·5 Gy fractions, depending on institutional preference) using minimisation, so no sequence was pre-generated. Clinicians, patients, and data managers had no previous knowledge of the treatment group to which patients would be assigned; however, the treatment assignment was subsequently open label (because of the nature of the interventions). The primary endpoint was time to local treatment failure (assessed according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1.0), with the hypothesis that SABR would result in superior local control compared with standard radiotherapy. All efficacy analyses were based on the intention-to-treat analysis. Safety analyses were done on a per-protocol basis, according to treatment that the patients actually received. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01014130) and the Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12610000479000). The trial is closed to new participants.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 31, 2009, and June 22, 2015, 101 eligible patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive SABR (n=66) or standard radiotherapy (n=35). Five (7·6%) patients in the SABR group and two (6·5%) in the standard radiotherapy group did not receive treatment, and a further four in each group withdrew before study end. As of data cutoff (July 31, 2017), median follow-up for local treatment failure was 2·1 years (IQR 1·2-3·6) for patients randomly assigned to standard radiotherapy and 2·6 years (IQR 1·6-3·6) for patients assigned to SABR. 20 (20%) of 101 patients had progressed locally: nine (14%) of 66 patients in the SABR group and 11 (31%) of 35 patients in the standard radiotherapy group, and freedom from local treatment failure was improved in the SABR group compared with the standard radiotherapy group (hazard ratio 0·32, 95% CI 0·13-0·77, p=0·0077). Median time to local treatment failure was not reached in either group. In patients treated with SABR, there was one grade 4 adverse event (dyspnoea) and seven grade 3 adverse events (two cough, one hypoxia, one lung infection, one weight loss, one dyspnoea, and one fatigue) related to treatment compared with two grade 3 events (chest pain) in the standard treatment group.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with inoperable peripherally located stage 1 NSCLC, compared with standard radiotherapy, SABR resulted in superior local control of the primary disease without an increase in major toxicity. The findings of this trial suggest that SABR should be the treatment of choice for this patient group.

FUNDING

The Radiation and Optometry Section of the Australian Government Department of Health with the assistance of Cancer Australia, and the Cancer Society of New Zealand and the Cancer Research Trust New Zealand (formerly Genesis Oncology Trust).

The role of granulocyte macrophage colony stimulating factor (GM-CSF) in radiation-induced tumor cell migration

Recently it has been observed in preclinical models that that radiation enhances the recruitment of circulating tumor cells to primary tumors, and results in tumor regrowth after treatment. This process may have implications for clinical radiotherapy, which improves control of a number of tumor types but which, despite continued dose escalation and aggressive fractionation, is unable to fully prevent local recurrences. By irradiating a single tumor within an animal bearing multiple lesions, we observed an increase in tumor cell migration to irradiated and unirradiated sites, suggesting a systemic component to this process. Previous work has identified the cytokine GM-CSF, produced by tumor cells following irradiation, as a key effector of this process. We evaluated the ability of systemic injections of a PEGylated form of GM-CSF to stimulate tumor cell migration. While increases in invasion and migration were observed for tumor cells in a transwell assay, we found that daily injections of PEG-GM-CSF to tumor-bearing animals did not increase migration of cells to tumors, despite the anticipated changes in circulating levels of granulocytes and monocytes produced by this treatment. Combination of PEG-GM-CSF treatment with radiation also did not increase tumor cell migration. These findings suggest that clinical use of GM-CSF to treat neutropenia in cancer patients will not have negative effects on the aggressiveness of residual cancer cells. However, further work is needed to characterize the mechanism by which GM-CSF facilitates systemic recruitment of trafficking tumor cells to tumors.

Hypofractionated Intensity-Modulated Radiotherapy for Patients With Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Alternative treatment regimens are needed for patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who cannot receive definitive treatment with concurrent chemoradiotherapy, surgery, or stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We report survival, patterns of failure and toxicity outcomes for patients with NSCLC who were not eligible for surgical resection, concurrent chemoradiotherapy, or SABR and underwent hypofractionated intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to evaluate the progression-free and overall survival. Competing risk analysis was used to evaluate in-field, locoregional, and distant failure.

RESULTS

A total of 42 patients treated to 52.5 to 60 Gy in 15 fractions were included. Most of the patients had metastatic or recurrent disease (64%) and a relatively large, centrally located tumor burden (74%). The median follow-up period was 13 months (interquartile range, 6-18 months). All patients received the total prescribed dose. The median survival was 15.1 months. The overall and progression-free survival rates at 1 year were 63% and 22.5%, respectively. The pattern of failure was predominantly distant, with only 2% of patients experiencing isolated in-field recurrence. The cumulative incidence of in-field failure at 6 and 12 months was 2.5% (95% confidence interval, 0.4%-15.6%) and 16.1% (95% confidence interval, 7.5%-34.7%), respectively. The risk of esophageal toxicity was associated with the esophageal mean dose, maximal point dose, and dose to the 5 cm³ volume. The risk of pneumonitis was associated with the lung mean dose and volume receiving 18 Gy.

CONCLUSION

Hypofractionated IMRT without concurrent chemotherapy provides favorable rates of local control and survival for well-selected patients with NSCLC who cannot tolerate standard definitive therapy.

Outcomes After Surgery in High-Risk Patients With Early Stage Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND

Patients with early stage lung cancer considered high risk for surgery are increasingly being treated with nonsurgical therapies. However, consensus on the classification of high risk does not exist. We compared clinical outcomes of patients considered to be high risk with those of standard-risk patients, after lung cancer surgery.

METHODS

A total of 490 patients from our institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons data from 2009 to 2013 underwent resection for clinical stage I lung cancer. High-risk patients were identified by ACOSOG z4032/z4099 criteria: major: forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) 50% or less or diffusing capacity of lung for carbon monoxide (Dlco) 50% or less; and minor: (two of the following), age 75 years or more, FEV1 51% to 60%, or Dlco 51% to 60%. Demographics, perioperative outcomes, and survival between high-risk and standard-risk patients undergoing lobectomy and sublobar resection were compared. Univariate analysis was performed using the χ(2) test/Fisher's exact test and the t test/Mann-Whitney U test. Survival was studied using a Cox regression model to calculate hazard ratios, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves were drawn.

RESULTS

In all, 180 patients (37%) were classified as high risk. These patients were older than standard-risk patients (70 years versus 65 years, respectively; p < 0.0001) and had worse FEV1 (57% versus 85%, p < 0.0001), and Dlco (47% versus 77%, p < 0.0001). High-risk patients also had more smoking pack-years than standard-risk patients (46 versus 30, p < 0.0001) and a greater incidence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (72% versus 32%, p < 0.0001), and were more likely to undergo sublobar resection (32% versus 20%, p = 0.001). Length of stay was longer in the high-risk group (5 versus 4 days, p < 0.0001), but there was no difference in postoperative mortality (2% versus 1%, p = 0.53). Nodal upstaging occurred in 20% of high-risk patients and 21% of standard-risk patients (p = 0.79). Three-year survival was 59% for high-risk patients and 76% for standard-risk patients (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

Good clinical outcomes after surgery for early stage lung cancer can be achieved in patients classified as high risk. In our study, surgery led to upstaging in 20% of patients and acceptable 1-, 2-, and 3-year survival as compared with historical rates for nonsurgical therapies. This study suggests that empiric selection criteria may deny patients optimal oncologic therapy.

Investigating the potential impact of four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) on toxicity, outcomes and dose escalation for radical lung cancer radiotherapy

AIMS

To investigate the potential dosimetric and clinical benefits predicted by using four-dimensional computed tomography (4DCT) compared with 3DCT in the planning of radical radiotherapy for non-small cell lung cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty patients were planned using free breathing 4DCT then retrospectively delineated on three-dimensional helical scan sets (3DCT). Beam arrangement and total dose (55 Gy in 20 fractions) were matched for 3D and 4D plans. Plans were compared for differences in planning target volume (PTV) geometrics and normal tissue complication probability (NTCP) for organs at risk using dose volume histograms. Tumour control probability and NTCP were modelled using the Lyman-Kutcher-Burman (LKB) model. This was compared with a predictive clinical algorithm (Maastro), which is based on patient characteristics, including: age, performance status, smoking history, lung function, tumour staging and concomitant chemotherapy, to predict survival and toxicity outcomes. Potential therapeutic gains were investigated by applying isotoxic dose escalation to both plans using constraints for mean lung dose (18 Gy), oesophageal maximum (70 Gy) and spinal cord maximum (48 Gy).

RESULTS

4DCT based plans had lower PTV volumes, a lower dose to organs at risk and lower predicted NTCP rates on LKB modelling (P < 0.006). The clinical algorithm showed no difference for predicted 2-year survival and dyspnoea rates between the groups, but did predict for lower oesophageal toxicity with 4DCT plans (P = 0.001). There was no correlation between LKB modelling and the clinical algorithm for lung toxicity or survival. Dose escalation was possible in 15/20 cases, with a mean increase in dose by a factor of 1.19 (10.45 Gy) using 4DCT compared with 3DCT plans.

CONCLUSIONS

4DCT can theoretically improve therapeutic ratio and dose escalation based on dosimetric parameters and mathematical modelling. However, when individual characteristics are incorporated, this gain may be less evident in terms of survival and dyspnoea rates. 4DCT allows potential for isotoxic dose escalation, which may lead to improved local control and better overall survival.

American College of Chest Physicians and Society of Thoracic Surgeons consensus statement for evaluation and management for high-risk patients with stage I non-small cell lung cancer

BACKGROUND

The standard treatment of stage I non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is lobectomy with systematic mediastinal lymph node evaluation. Unfortunately, up to 25% of patients with stage I NSCLC are not candidates for lobectomy because of severe medical comorbidity.

METHODS

A panel of experts was convened through the Thoracic Oncology Network of the American College of Chest Physicians and the Workforce on Evidence-Based Surgery of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Following a literature review, the panel developed 13 suggestions for evaluation and treatment through iterative discussion and debate until unanimous agreement was achieved.

RESULTS

Pretreatment evaluation should focus primarily on measures of cardiopulmonary physiology, as respiratory failure represents the greatest interventional risk. Alternative treatment options to lobectomy for high-risk patients include sublobar resection with or without brachytherapy, stereotactic body radiation therapy, and radiofrequency ablation. Each is associated with decreased procedural morbidity and mortality but increased risk for involved lobe and regional recurrence compared with lobectomy, but direct comparisons between modalities are lacking.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic options for the treatment of high-risk patients are evolving quickly. Improved radiographic staging and the diagnosis of smaller and more indolent tumors push the risk-benefit decision toward parenchymal-sparing or nonoperative therapies in high-risk patients. Unbiased assessment of treatment options requires uniform reporting of treatment populations and outcomes in clinical series, which has been lacking to date.